I checked your first link, Gaia-j. It basically proved Bytebear's point. Every reference I saw was from the Journal of Discourses. Now how is that hiding a doctrine again? As to the quotes you've shared here, all I can suggest is that maybe they really are trying to clear up a huge misconception. Perhaps instead of doggedly sticking to our views it would behoove us to consider their point.

[QUOTE=Suchele;203570]
I checked your first link, Gaia-j. It basically proved Bytebear's point. Every reference I saw was from the Journal of Discourses. Now how is that hiding a doctrine again? As to the quotes you've shared here, all I can suggest is that maybe they really are trying to clear up a huge misconception. Perhaps instead of doggedly sticking to our views it would behoove us to consider their point.
[/QUOTE]

GAIA:

First, i guess i must ask you, to which "point" do you think i am "doggedly" sticking" ?

This doctrine was emphatically, definitely and clearly taught (see just a few of those references provided in the latter two links of my previous post) --

It was taught:

- By nearly ALL the GA's --

-With the notable exception of Orson Pratt, who fought against it and was eviently punished (partly) for doing so--

-- Both over the pulpit and in official church publications, for OVER 35 YEARS .

- In the Temple during the presidences of FOUR Prophets: Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow.

- People were brought before High Council courts for DISbelieving or rejecting it.

- There are other major doctrines -- both past and present -- that are associated with it, even feed right into it.

Now do you honestly beleive that ALL those prophets and apostles could make such a "mistake" or "misconception" -- for THIRTY FIVE YEARS ??? That's a mighty * huge* "misconception" - How do you reconcile it with the idea that they are supposed to have the Spirit of Discernment -- especially regarding anything to do with Church guidance???

The issue is not that it was discussed in the JD --

The issue is that it was LIED ABOUT -- denied, suppressed and discounted in the JD and elsewhere -- as "heresy", or "anti-Mormon lies"-- many years after it was very clearly, emphatically and consistently taught, *not* just in the JD but many other sources (including Conference Addresses) --

Now, do you honestly beleive that FOUR of the PROPHETS AND PRESIDENTS of the Church would teach "heresy" or "anti-Mormon lies" -- or cause them to be taught?

Do you honestly beleive they would do this for OVER THIRTY FIVE YEARS?

With all due respect -- If that passes *your* "sniff test" --- you've got a remarkable tolerance! *smile*

I checked your first link, Gaia-j. It basically proved Bytebear's point. Every reference I saw was from the Journal of Discourses. Now how is that hiding a doctrine again? As to the quotes you've shared here, all I can suggest is that maybe they really are trying to clear up a huge misconception. Perhaps instead of doggedly sticking to our views it would behoove us to consider their point.

[QUOTE=Suchele;203570]
I checked your first link, Gaia-j. It basically proved Bytebear's point. Every reference I saw was from the Journal of Discourses. Now how is that hiding a doctrine again? As to the quotes you've shared here, all I can suggest is that maybe they really are trying to clear up a huge misconception. Perhaps instead of doggedly sticking to our views it would behoove us to consider their point.
[/QUOTE]

GAIA:

First, i guess i must ask you, to which "point" do you think i am "doggedly" sticking" ?

This doctrine was emphatically, definitely and clearly taught (see just a few of those references provided in the latter two links of my previous post) --

It was taught:

- By nearly ALL the GA's --

-With the notable exception of Orson Pratt, who fought against it and was eviently punished (partly) for doing so--

-- Both over the pulpit and in official church publications, for OVER 35 YEARS .

- In the Temple during the presidences of FOUR Prophets: Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow.

- People were brought before High Council courts for DISbelieving or rejecting it.

- There are other major doctrines -- both past and present -- that are associated with it, even feed right into it.

Now do you honestly beleive that ALL those prophets and apostles could make such a "mistake" or "misconception" -- for THIRTY FIVE YEARS ??? That's a mighty * huge* "misconception" - How do you reconcile it with the idea that they are supposed to have the Spirit of Discernment -- especially regarding anything to do with Church guidance???

The issue is not that it was discussed in the JD --

The issue is that it was LIED ABOUT -- denied, suppressed and discounted in the JD and elsewhere -- as "heresy", or "anti-Mormon lies"-- many years after it was very clearly, emphatically and consistently taught, *not* just in the JD but many other sources (including Conference Addresses) --

Now, do you honestly beleive that FOUR of the PROPHETS AND PRESIDENTS of the Church would teach "heresy" or "anti-Mormon lies" -- or cause them to be taught?

Do you honestly beleive they would do this for OVER THIRTY FIVE YEARS?

With all due respect -- If that passes *your* "sniff test" --- you've got a remarkable tolerance! *smile*

my point is that if the church really wanted to cover it up, they would have covered it up. Instead the publish Young's teachings, open to anyone. But the church has every obligation and responsibility to say that regardless of what we read, we are not understanding the true meaning of Young's message. Church doctrine does change as new things are revealed. I personally think (particularly given the presentation of the Endowment) that Young had a point, but I also think it is a far step from the conclusions we make today. When we go too far in our assumptions (as I think Young and his contemporaries did), later generations of prophets must pull in the reigns. One of the wonderful things about Mormonism is that no prophet can ever contradict another because (in theory) the contradiction is resolved by an extension of knowledge and understanding through reveleation.

[QUOTE=bytebear;204390]
my point is that if the church really wanted to cover it up, they would have covered it up.

GAIA:

I don't think you quite understand the *scope* and EXTENT of this thing yet --

We are NOT talking about a couple of statements by Brigham Young, in the JD, here.

- We are talking about literally HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of statements over a period of OVER THIRTY FIVE YEARS -- and NOT just in the JD, but in ALL of the church's official publications during that period of 35 + Years --
Just a few include the Elder's JOurnal, the Women's Exponent, the Deseret News, the Juvenile Instructor, the Evening and Morning Star, and in Europe, the Millennial Star,--

These were not books; these were newspapers, magazines and journals, that were already out in the public -- in LIbraries, private collections, etc. Trying to gather up al of the Deseret News statements *alone* would have been an impossible task -- And that's not even counting the many statements in books.

Where they could excise the record, they did of course -- for example, they changed the Hymnal because there was a hymn that referred to the doctrine.

BYTEBEAR:
Instead the publish Young's teachings, open to anyone.

GAIA:

Again, you seem to accept the (FALSE) notion that this was just a teaching of Brigham Young -- It was taught by virtually ALL the GA's of the era, with the notable exception of Orson Pratt -- who was PUNISHED for not accepting it, as were some others.

BYTEBEAR:
But the church has every obligation and responsibility to say that regardless of what we read, we are not understanding the true meaning of Young's message.

GAIA:

First, it WASN"T "Young's Message"; it was taught throughout the presidencies of FOUR Prophets, and (as i've said several times now) by ALL the GA's of the era.

Secondly, those men were very plain-spoken and direct; they said what they meant and meant what they said. Please tell me how it's possible to "misunderstand" the following:

"He is the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, both body and spirit: and he is the father of our spirits, and the father of our flesh in the beginning. You will not dispute the words of an Apostle, that he is actually the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits . . . I tell you simply he is our father; the God and father of our Lords Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits . . . I say he was not made of the dust of the ground of this earth, but he was made of the dust of the earth where he lived, where he honored his calling, believed in his Savior, or elder brother, and by his faithfulness, was redeemed and got a glorious resurrection . . .
(Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1854)

Our spirits and the spirts of all the human family were begotten by Adam and born of Eve . . . I tell you, when you see your Father in heaven, you will see Adam ; when you see your mother that bore your spirit, you will see mother Eve ." (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1854)

"Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth. He had lived on an earth similar to ours. He had received the priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things, and had gained his
resurrection, and his exaltation and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods, for such he became through his faithfulness." (Brigham Young quoted in the Journal of L. John Nuttall, Feb 7, 1887)

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body , and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken. HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the Only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians and non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. [b] And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven . Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. " (Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51 1854)

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed [u] to me--namely that Adam is our father and God ...

....Father adam came here, and then they brought his wife . . . Then he said, "I want [u] my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh." (Deseret News, June 18, 1873)

* * *

PLEASE NOTE: Just there, in those few statements, you have a spread of TWENTY-TWO YEARS; and you can see that it was taught in the public NEWSPAPER, the Deseret News.

It would have been impossible for the church to go hunt up all of the statements and excise them from the public record -- they were already out in hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of public and private Libraries!

BYTEBEAR:

Church doctrine does change as new things are revealed.

GAIA:

Uh, Church doctrine that is presented by a PROPHET and PRESIDENT of the Church as "scripture" and "Revelation" should NOT "change" -- it is supposed to be REVEALED TRUTH.

Are you suggeting that it's possible for such Revealed Truth to "change"???

And If it is possible, then how can you ever know what is realy true, and what will eventually be "corrected"?

You're painting yourself into a philosophical corner here, with this desperate attempt to justify something that cannot be justified.....

BYTEBEAR:
One of the wonderful things about Mormonism is that no prophet can ever contradict another because (in theory) the contradiction is resolved by an extension of knowledge and understanding through reveleation.
[/QUOTE]

GAIA:
How terribly convenient. You don't see the problems with that?

REVEALED TRUTH that is portrayed by a PROPHET to be "scripture" and "revelation" should not *need* to be "corrected", and if it does, it was NEVER true in the first place --

And right there you have completely negated the entire concept of a "Prophet", and of "Revelation".

With all due respect -- If the church keeps playing fast and loose with the "truth" this way, a lot of people are going to wake up and realize that there can't be any such thing as "revelation" or "discernment" -- at least in this Church.

Gaia, you are still not understaning my point. You are "proving" a doctrinal point that you say th church is trying to stifle But if they were trying to stifle it, why are all of your references from the church itself? My point isn't that church leaders did or didn't do something. My point is that the church doesn't hide those actions, but rather, tells us what the current understanding is, and allows us to study the matter for ourselves. If the church were really trying to cover things up, you would not have access to any of those documents, but they are still to this day published by the church for all to read. How is that covering anything up?

also, you say:

[QUOTE] GAIA:How terribly convenient. You don't see the problems with that? [/QUOTE]

in respons to my comment that "One of the wonderful things about Mormonism is that no prophet can ever contradict another because (in theory) the contradiction is resolved by an extension of knowledge and understanding through reveleation."

But you should be happy with this, or we would have to follow the "doctrines" of Paul which I am sure you disagree.

You are misunderstanding "Church doctrine" and "God's truth" They are not the same thing, and we know that certain people were given more revelation than others. When the Israelites couldn't handle the higher law, they were given a lesser law. Maybe Adam-God was a greater truth that we couldn't handle, or we all (including BY) got it so wrong, that it became corrupt and false. Either way, the current leadership has a different understanding than the former church. Big deal, maybe more will be revealed, but for now we must ignore the Adam-God theory, becuase we do not have the enough understanding. Certainly BY contradicted himself, and if you take all of his comments about the Godhead, it starts sounding as mysterious as the trinity. "Is Adam the creator of himself?" "Was Adam exhaulted and resurrected, but then kicked out of the garden?" None of these issues can be understood if we just take Adam-God at face value. So we have to conclude that at least in current interpretation of what Young meant is false.

Gaia, you are still not understaning my point. You are "proving" a doctrinal point that you say th church is trying to stifle But if they were trying to stifle it, why are all of your references from the church itself?

GAIA:

OK, one more time:

They could not possibly remove all the many, many references to the Adam-God doctrine from ALL the newpapapers, magazines, books, etc, because those references were already OUT in hundreds (if not thousands) of libraries, homes, etc;

- So they did the next-best thing: They tried to discount, deny, suppress, and lie about it, by claiming everything from "Brigham was misunderstood" to "it was a heresy" to "it was an 'anti-Mormon' lie that the church NEVER taught."

BYTEBEAR:
My point isn't that church leaders did or didn't do something. My point is that the church doesn't hide those actions, but rather, tells us what the current understanding is, and allows us to study the matter for ourselves.

GAIA:

a) The "Current understanding" is absolutely and completely the OPPOSITE of what (Presidents and 'Prophets') JOhn Taylor, Heber C Kimball, Lorenzo Snow, Wilford Woodruff, Birgham Young and nearly ALL the other General Authorities of the era PLAINLY, clearly and emphatically taught. The Church is therefore in a real bind on this, which you have never yet addressed: Either those early "prophets" WERE NO PROPHETS, or the ones today are lying. And If the earlier prophets goofed, how can you ever know that *anything* being taught will not someday be taught as wrong and "corrected" / changed by someone in the future?

b) ROFL -- If the church finds you "studying Adam-God out for yourself" with any real interest, depth, or regularity, you are EXCOMMUNICATED.

BYTEBEAR:

If the church were really trying to cover things up, you would not have access to any of those documents,

GAIA:

Again, you don't realize the scope of this teaching -- there is NO WAY they could "cover up" or hide or destroy ALL the teachings on this doctrine, or all the references in all the hundreds of different resources, Byte -- it was taught for over THIRTY-FIVE YEARS, in every Church publication and Conference, and hundreds of books, It would be impossible to retrieve all those statements from 35 years, that were *already* out in the public.

So they did the next-best thing: They tried to discount, deny, suppress and lie about it, and punish anyone who studied or taught it.

And now, they don't NEED to destroy all the references --
their excuses are now so ingrained into Chuch members, that people lilke YOU make those excuses FOR them! Instead of actually reading the material and trying to understand what it says, you automatically dismiss it on the basis of flimsy, self-contradictory excuses that you would NEVER accept from anyone else!

BYTEBEAR:

You are misunderstanding "Church doctrine" and "God's truth" They are not the same thing, and we know that certain people were given more revelation than others. When the Israelites couldn't handle the higher law, they were given a lesser law. Maybe Adam-God was a greater truth that we couldn't handle, or we all (including BY) got it so wrong, that it became corrupt and false. Either way, the current leadership has a different understanding than the former church. Big deal, maybe more will be revealed, but for now we must ignore the Adam-God theory, becuase we do not have the enough understanding.

GAIA:

I think i've proven over the 10+ years that i've been here, that i have a pretty good grasp on Church Doctrine, Byte; Like everyone, i'm still working on "God's Truth" *smile*.

The idea that this doctrine was misunderstood or cannot be understood, is an excuse that's commonly used by the Chruch -- an old refrain that you (and others who have accepted the Church's excuses) take up FOR them now.

As i said before, the A-G doctrine is quite clear, the statements teaching it were plain, clear and emphatic, there is no "misunderstanding" what they taught -- That's another story the Church has concocted to try to de-fuse the doctrine.

BYTEBEAR:

Certainly BY contradicted himself, and if you take all of his comments about the Godhead, it starts sounding as mysterious as the trinity. .... So we have to conclude that at least in current interpretation of what Young meant is false.
[/QUOTE]

GAIA:

NO, we DON'T have to conclude any such thing --

I have provided explanations for all those seeming contradictions, Byte. See: